A player should be able to cite three of any entries in one's citations, not necessarily two phantoms and one finished entry as is the case now. We'd still have to abide by the "don't cite yourself" restriction. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

A player should be able to cite three of any entries in one's citations, not necessarily two phantoms and one finished entry as is the case now. We'd still have to abide by the "don't cite yourself" restriction. --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

−

YEA: [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]]

+

YEA: [[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]], [[User:Jcowan|John Cowan]]

<br />NAY: [[User:Nikos of Ant|Nikos of Ant]]

<br />NAY: [[User:Nikos of Ant|Nikos of Ant]]

Line 39:

Line 39:

One should be able to write any entry under the particular turn letter, not necessarily filling in all the phantoms before creating new entries. (This partially coincides with the next rule as well, but ultimately strives to make the playing experience more enjoyable: there's no love in being forced to write an entry you've no interest in.) --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

One should be able to write any entry under the particular turn letter, not necessarily filling in all the phantoms before creating new entries. (This partially coincides with the next rule as well, but ultimately strives to make the playing experience more enjoyable: there's no love in being forced to write an entry you've no interest in.) --[[User:Sbp|Sean B. Palmer]] 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

:Actually, there's an awful lot. This rule only restricts the creation of ''entire'' entries about people - so, no one would be able to define [[Baby Alek]], but they could certainly continue to talk about the Baby Alek courtcase, or transcribe the court proceedings, or talk about the chemical process that cut him up into all those little pieces. You'd still be able to talk about people, groups, and places ''in the course of your entry on something else'', they just wouldn't be the crux of the entry itself. Take a look at all the entries for A. Out of 35 entries, only roughly half are ''named'' for a person, place, or group. --[[User:MorbusIff|Morbus Iff]] 15:33, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

:Actually, there's an awful lot. This rule only restricts the creation of ''entire'' entries about people - so, no one would be able to define [[Baby Alek]], but they could certainly continue to talk about the Baby Alek courtcase, or transcribe the court proceedings, or talk about the chemical process that cut him up into all those little pieces. You'd still be able to talk about people, groups, and places ''in the course of your entry on something else'', they just wouldn't be the crux of the entry itself. Take a look at all the entries for A. Out of 35 entries, only roughly half are ''named'' for a person, place, or group. --[[User:MorbusIff|Morbus Iff]] 15:33, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

+

+

:I'd like to phase this in by disallowing new phantoms that are proper nouns, but still allowing existing proper-noun phantoms to be written. --[[User:Jcowan|John Cowan]] 15:49, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

This page is for discussing Round 3 of Ghyll, currently scheduled to begin January 2006.

Should there be a Round 3?

Are you interested? Would you play? What (rules, date, style, etc.) should change? What makes you unhappy with the current state of play? I've had every intent to keep the Ghyll Lexicon going as long as there are players (and perhaps longer) - in the absence of them, I'd probably move on to other (slower, less regular) products such as a Ghyll game deadtree book ("Poor Ghyllians Almanac" is the most popular choice at the moment, though that, honestly, is years away). Some folks have been debating privately whether to stop playing, and their dissatisfaction partly comes from the quality of phantoms being produced (and thus, needing to be written). What sort of phantoms and entries do you prefer to write? --Morbus Iff 09:08, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Between Rounds

The following was hammered out during R1-->R2. They'd still apply.

Allow a rest period between rounds

Write up in-game "End of Year" reports.

Finish up any discussions on this page.

Take a break and collect your thoughts.

Mad-edit anything that needs to.

Allow scholars to revamp previous round's entries

Edit ANY entry for clarity and collection.

No NEW facts, just revamped to include missing/clarified facts.

No dibbing on edits; if necc. mad-edits are collaborative.

Proposed Rule Changes

No restrictions on 3 entry citations

A player should be able to cite three of any entries in one's citations, not necessarily two phantoms and one finished entry as is the case now. We'd still have to abide by the "don't cite yourself" restriction. --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

The existing rule forces us writers to reference the existing world and forces us to create something new. -- Nikos of Ant 15:19, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

And this wouldn't change in the least - you'd still have to cite three entries in your entry, and you'd still have to cite someone else, not yourself. The ONLY thing this proposed rule changes is the type of citations you have to make, not the number. You'd still have to write an entry that has three official citations not your own. Whether those citations are three existing entries, two existing entries and one phantom, three phantoms, or what have you, would no longer matter. I'm not seeing where that would remove references to the existing world (save for three brand new phantoms, which would be impossible since we'd still have the "only create one new phantom" rule.) --Morbus Iff 15:33, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Writing phantoms first is no longer required

One should be able to write any entry under the particular turn letter, not necessarily filling in all the phantoms before creating new entries. (This partially coincides with the next rule as well, but ultimately strives to make the playing experience more enjoyable: there's no love in being forced to write an entry you've no interest in.) --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

No entries solely about people, groups, or places

Ban creating entries, even of currently phantomed entries, that are either people, groups, or places. We have way too many of those types of entries already, and banning them would force people to be more creative. --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

If we don't write about People, Groups, and Places what do you have in mind? -- Nikos of Ant 15:19, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Actually, there's an awful lot. This rule only restricts the creation of entire entries about people - so, no one would be able to define Baby Alek, but they could certainly continue to talk about the Baby Alek courtcase, or transcribe the court proceedings, or talk about the chemical process that cut him up into all those little pieces. You'd still be able to talk about people, groups, and places in the course of your entry on something else, they just wouldn't be the crux of the entry itself. Take a look at all the entries for A. Out of 35 entries, only roughly half are named for a person, place, or group. --Morbus Iff 15:33, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I'd like to phase this in by disallowing new phantoms that are proper nouns, but still allowing existing proper-noun phantoms to be written. --John Cowan 15:49, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)